Judges embrace sentencing guidelines’ limits

Published: Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 5:33 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 5:33 p.m.

Trial judges in the state surprised the Alabama Sentencing Commission by overwhelmingly making use of voluntary sentencing guidelines that went into effect a year ago.

Facts

Sentencing Standards FAQ

Q: What are the standards?A: These are the suggested punishments and punishment ranges for prison sentences expressed in months. Q: How were the ranges selected?A: The ranges were established by examining historical sentencing data and making certain minor adjustments to reflect current sentencing policies. Under the standards, drug and property offenders are slightly less likely to go to prison and those convicted of personal crimes are slightly more likely to receive a prison sentence than under historical sentencing practices. Similarly, drug and property offenders are likely to receive a slightly shorter sentence, while the sentence recommendation for violent offenders is likely to be somewhat longer.Q: Does a judge have to sentence within the range suggested in the standards?A: No. It is fully expected and intended the standards will only apply 75 percent of the time. Downward and upward departures are left up to the judge’s discretion based on the facts of each case.Q: What if a judge sentences outside of the standards?A: He or she is requested to write a brief explanation as to why the standards are not followed.This statement is provided solely to assist the Alabama Sentencing Commission in making future modifications to the standards based on courtroom feedback.Q: Are the sentences imposed under the standards subject to appellate review?A: No.Q: Is this system the same as “truth-in-sentencing?”A: No. Sentences imposed under the standards still allow offenders to receive good time and parole consideration. Truth-in-sentencing requires that the time imposed matches the time actually served.Q:. Are these like the federal guidelines?A: Definitely Not!!! They are not even similar to the mandatory or presumptive guidelines that exist in states like North Carolina, Minnesota or Kansas. They were patterned after Virginia’s guidelines and are voluntary and not subject to appellate review.Q: If they are voluntary and not subject to appellate review then why do you think judges will follow them?A: There are several advantages, one of which is the fact that these standards reflect the sentencing practices generally used by judges around the state, throwing out the extremes. These standards will provide judges with the information needed to make informed sentencing decisions. Another incentive to use the standards is that the Habitual Felony Offender Act and mandatory enhancements that otherwise would apply are not applicable to sentences imposed pursuant to the standards. The standards should also encourage plea agreements.Q: What happens if a judge does not consider the standards at all?A: Although the failure to consider the standards is not appealable, judges are required to consider the standards pursuant to Section 12-25-35, Code of Alabama 1975. The fact that no right of appeal is granted does not affect the judge’s responsibility.

The commission reported earlier this month that judges considered the guidelines in 86 percent of cases. Judicial circuits didn’t break the numbers down, and none were available locally.

“Although I don’t know our compliance rate, I have heard that we have done a very good job here,” said Judge Scott Donaldson, who presides in the 6th Judicial Circuit, which covers Tuscaloosa.

“I think that, in general, all four judges are considering the guidelines when appropriate.”

The guidelines were created to reduce prison overcrowding and give judges more options. They tighten the range of prison time for certain offenses and reduce the sentences for property crimes.

To use the sentencing guidelines, judges and attorneys fill out a worksheet devised by the sentencing commission with information such as age and the number and severity of previous crimes. The worksheet helps determine the length of sentence and whether an alternate sentence, such as drug court, is appropriate.

The compliance figures took into account only how many times judges used the worksheets, not how often they followed the recommendation.

“The range of sentence is narrowed, but judges still have the ability to sentence based on individual facts,” Donaldson said.

Pros and cons

Not everyone is a fan of the guidelines, including Chris Hargett, the senior assistant district attorney in Tuscaloosa.

“I’ve never been sold on the idea of guidelines,” he said, noting that he was speaking for himself alone, not District Attorney Tommy Smith or his office.

Hargett said that prisoners usually receive shorter sentences when judges use the guidelines.

“That means that prisoners are getting out earlier and going right back into the system when they commit new crimes,” Hargett said. “That’s costing the citizens money, and it means that more people are being victimized.”

One goal of the guidelines is to create equality in sentencing so people who commit the same crimes in different areas of the state spend about the same time in prison.

Hargett believes that the standards, in this first year, have had the opposite effect, since not all judges are using them.

“There is a greater disparity in sentencing than there was before,” he said. “This leaves me with the feeling that my victims are being shortchanged.”

But retired Judge Joseph Colquitt, a University of Alabama law professor and chairman of the Alabama Sentencing Commission, doesn’t agree.

“By using the standards even more frequently than we had anticipated, the judges are helping to reduce disparity in sentencing beyond our initial expectations,” he said. “The elimination of unwarranted disparity in sentencing is a worthy goal, and one that the Alabama Sentencing Commission has identified as a principal objective.”

Colquitt said it’s difficult to predict whether more judges will follow the guidelines. The practice of using standards is new to the judiciary, for one thing. The nature and number of cases also change occasionally, affecting the use of standards, he said. Judges may be encouraged to use the guidelines consistently after learning that many others in the state are using them. Colquitt also said that educating people in the criminal justice system and future modifications to the forms might make their usage more common.

Overcrowded prisons

The Alabama Legislature created the sentencing commission in 2000 to review the state’s sentencing laws. Members include judges, parole officers, attorneys and law enforcement officials.

A main goal of its creation was to reduce prison overcrowding. All of the state’s prisons are holding more prisoners than the buildings were originally made for. The most jam-packed is Kilby Correctional Facility in Montgomery, which was designed to house 440 prisoners. Inmate numbers reached 1,421 in August, the last month for which data is available, an occupancy rate of 316 percent.

Conditions aren’t much better at the state’s other prisons, where occupancy rates range from 134 percent to 165 percent. Death row at Holman was designed for 56 prisoners, but in August it was home to 176 prisoners — an occupancy rate of 311 percent.

The sentencing commission also intends to work toward more “truth in sentencing,” that is, requiring actual punishment, such as time in jail, to more closely match the criminal’s sentence. The guidelines were the first step toward that goal. Commission members hope to have a system in place eventually that gives judges a narrower range of punishment for crimes that would require them to justify decisions to impose punishments outside those ranges.

Currently, for example, a prisoner could be sentenced to 10 years for drug trafficking but serve only three. A judge might sentence someone to 10 years with the intention of making them serve no more than three or four. A sentencing structure, proponents say, would not leave victims or felons guessing about how long a prison term really is.

“This system could be made to work, but not on the piecemeal way it’s being implemented,” Hargett said. “For it to work, we would need a mandatory sentencing scheme and to incorporate truth in sentencing. Until we get that, I think it’s hard for the public to have a lot of faith in the criminal justice system.”

<p>Trial judges in the state surprised the Alabama Sentencing Commission by overwhelmingly making use of voluntary sentencing guidelines that went into effect a year ago. </p><p>Tuscaloosa was no exception.</p><p>The commission reported earlier this month that judges considered the guidelines in 86 percent of cases. Judicial circuits didn’t break the numbers down, and none were available locally.</p><p>Although I don’t know our compliance rate, I have heard that we have done a very good job here, said Judge Scott Donaldson, who presides in the 6th Judicial Circuit, which covers Tuscaloosa.</p><p>I think that, in general, all four judges are considering the guidelines when appropriate.</p><p>The guidelines were created to reduce prison overcrowding and give judges more options. They tighten the range of prison time for certain offenses and reduce the sentences for property crimes.</p><p>To use the sentencing guidelines, judges and attorneys fill out a worksheet devised by the sentencing commission with information such as age and the number and severity of previous crimes. The worksheet helps determine the length of sentence and whether an alternate sentence, such as drug court, is appropriate. </p><p>The compliance figures took into account only how many times judges used the worksheets, not how often they followed the recommendation.</p><p>The range of sentence is narrowed, but judges still have the ability to sentence based on individual facts, Donaldson said.</p><p>Pros and cons</p><p>Not everyone is a fan of the guidelines, including Chris Hargett, the senior assistant district attorney in Tuscaloosa.</p><p>I’ve never been sold on the idea of guidelines, he said, noting that he was speaking for himself alone, not District Attorney Tommy Smith or his office.</p><p>Hargett said that prisoners usually receive shorter sentences when judges use the guidelines.</p><p>That means that prisoners are getting out earlier and going right back into the system when they commit new crimes, Hargett said. That’s costing the citizens money, and it means that more people are being victimized.</p><p>One goal of the guidelines is to create equality in sentencing so people who commit the same crimes in different areas of the state spend about the same time in prison.</p><p>Hargett believes that the standards, in this first year, have had the opposite effect, since not all judges are using them.</p><p>There is a greater disparity in sentencing than there was before, he said. This leaves me with the feeling that my victims are being shortchanged.</p><p>But retired Judge Joseph Colquitt, a University of Alabama law professor and chairman of the Alabama Sentencing Commission, doesn’t agree.</p><p>By using the standards even more frequently than we had anticipated, the judges are helping to reduce disparity in sentencing beyond our initial expectations, he said. The elimination of unwarranted disparity in sentencing is a worthy goal, and one that the Alabama Sentencing Commission has identified as a principal objective.</p><p>Colquitt said it’s difficult to predict whether more judges will follow the guidelines. The practice of using standards is new to the judiciary, for one thing. The nature and number of cases also change occasionally, affecting the use of standards, he said. Judges may be encouraged to use the guidelines consistently after learning that many others in the state are using them. Colquitt also said that educating people in the criminal justice system and future modifications to the forms might make their usage more common.</p><p>Overcrowded prisons</p><p>The Alabama Legislature created the sentencing commission in 2000 to review the state’s sentencing laws. Members include judges, parole officers, attorneys and law enforcement officials.</p><p>A main goal of its creation was to reduce prison overcrowding. All of the state’s prisons are holding more prisoners than the buildings were originally made for. The most jam-packed is Kilby Correctional Facility in Montgomery, which was designed to house 440 prisoners. Inmate numbers reached 1,421 in August, the last month for which data is available, an occupancy rate of 316 percent. </p><p>Conditions aren’t much better at the state’s other prisons, where occupancy rates range from 134 percent to 165 percent. Death row at Holman was designed for 56 prisoners, but in August it was home to 176 prisoners  an occupancy rate of 311 percent.</p><p>The sentencing commission also intends to work toward more truth in sentencing, that is, requiring actual punishment, such as time in jail, to more closely match the criminal’s sentence. The guidelines were the first step toward that goal. Commission members hope to have a system in place eventually that gives judges a narrower range of punishment for crimes that would require them to justify decisions to impose punishments outside those ranges. </p><p>Currently, for example, a prisoner could be sentenced to 10 years for drug trafficking but serve only three. A judge might sentence someone to 10 years with the intention of making them serve no more than three or four. A sentencing structure, proponents say, would not leave victims or felons guessing about how long a prison term really is. </p><p>This system could be made to work, but not on the piecemeal way it’s being implemented, Hargett said. For it to work, we would need a mandatory sentencing scheme and to incorporate truth in sentencing. Until we get that, I think it’s hard for the public to have a lot of faith in the criminal justice system.</p><p>Reach Stephanie Taylor at stephanie.taylor@tuscaloosanews.com or 205-722-0210.</p>